Comments on: Underwater Ocean City for a Future Australiahttp://inhabitat.com/underwater-ocean-city-could-be-in-australias-future/
Green design & eco innovation for a better worldSun, 02 Aug 2015 15:14:15 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2By: Chris Cullyhttp://inhabitat.com/underwater-ocean-city-could-be-in-australias-future/comment-page-1/#comment-588058
Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:20:34 +0000http://www.inhabitat.com/?p=102891#comment-588058As amazing and aspirational as this potentially is, have you ever heard of a game called Brink? If shit in this scenario doesn’t hit the myriad of fans that could ruin such an ideal habitat, there is always the possibility that the self encapsulated utopian society becomes completely detached from the rest of the world…only connected by the internet (not unlike how people communicate in Wall-E).

Saying that, I would be the first to live on and in such a place…I’m still excited about the underground eco-city, Masdar.

]]>By: Princess Bloomhttp://inhabitat.com/underwater-ocean-city-could-be-in-australias-future/comment-page-1/#comment-413249
Sat, 08 Dec 2012 19:56:07 +0000http://www.inhabitat.com/?p=102891#comment-413249wierd
]]>By: bubblehttp://inhabitat.com/underwater-ocean-city-could-be-in-australias-future/comment-page-1/#comment-347902
Sat, 30 Jul 2011 17:11:09 +0000http://www.inhabitat.com/?p=102891#comment-347902this is something i would really like to see and possibly live in. I wonder how would this effect sea life.
]]>By: Sub Biosphere 2: A Self-Sustaining Underwater City | Inhabitat - Green Design Will Save the Worldhttp://inhabitat.com/underwater-ocean-city-could-be-in-australias-future/comment-page-1/#comment-232816
Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:57:34 +0000http://www.inhabitat.com/?p=102891#comment-232816[…] unique underwater habitat is designed to sustain all of its life support systems — air, water, food, electricity, and […]
]]>By: eco-pandahttp://inhabitat.com/underwater-ocean-city-could-be-in-australias-future/comment-page-1/#comment-218838
Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:28:43 +0000http://www.inhabitat.com/?p=102891#comment-218838i like this idea of a underwater city, i think its kinda cool. but it would cost alot of money if other countries as well are going to do this, especially poor countries who are strugglng anyway. plus how are we as humans going to adabt to a unerwater life style? either way good idea i myslef would like to try that 😀
]]>By: Eric Huntinghttp://inhabitat.com/underwater-ocean-city-could-be-in-australias-future/comment-page-1/#comment-218361
Fri, 09 Apr 2010 01:13:27 +0000http://www.inhabitat.com/?p=102891#comment-218361I particularly like the Island Proposition 2100, which I think would merge nicely with the AquaTown concept. This is how I imagine an ideal urban land and near-shore habitat where civilization has consciously decided to give nature her space and gain unexpected lifestyle convenience and a million dollar back yard view for every home as a bonus. The idea of the Linear City -an urban habitat built within a lofted transit conduit- was one of Paulo Soleri’s most underrated yet most important of arcology concepts. Soleri himself seems to have largely ignored it even though he noted its importance as the largest volume habitat in his arcology vision. People focus on the giant megastructures, but the real model of the arcology habitat was a network of linear cities -much smaller in sectional scale but spanning thousands of miles- along a small number of select high-bandwidth transit routes replacing most of the built habitat with the towering megastructures serving only as nodal communities where these routes cross. Linear cities are, in fact, no particular engineering challenge and as that island Proposition 2100 shows would still allow for an infinite variety in design expression and space use. Imagine a world where we willingly restricted all human habitation to within 1/4 mile of a few exclusively electric interstate highway, PRT, or rail routes and returned all that space to nature. This is the actual arcology habitat vision most people miss. Unfortunately, Soleri’s ego seems to have demanded his focus on grandiose monuments rather than the living and evolving urban habitats the linear cities, owing to their incremental construction, would be by default. You can’t dictate the evolution of structures that grow over centuries and can be spontaneously adapted by their inhabitants so he wasn’t interested in exploring the concept in detail. Its good to see that some contemporary designers -perhaps with some of Constant Nieuwenhuys’ sensibilities- are picking up where he left off on this concept.
]]>